Monthly Archives: April 2019

What’s Your Tamga?

PublishedApril 26, 2019 Post authortorino

An interesting question is how are artifacts classified as “Suavic”, “Germanic”, “Gothic”, “Sarmatian” or whateverish. The fact is that there is no real way to tell and this is as much a preference of the classifier and a question of that person’s laziness or prejudices as anything else. Oftentimes, you just assume something belongs to a certain culture based on your understanding of what culture an artifact found in a given location and dated to a certain time should belong to. There is, of course, some basis for this. Trying to reengineer your understanding of the past each time something new is dug up makes no sense. However, taken to an extreme this method can result in a case of confirmation bias with each find just reconfirming an existing view, no matter what it looks like.

This is the case with all kinds of artifacts. Certainly, pots and pans with no special markings present this issue. Other types of stuff that have etchings or pictures can be swept up by this. But the problem extends beyond those, even to those items that have clear markings or writing. From our past studies we have come across these spear heads. They are almost always described as “Germanic” or “Gothic” in the literature. In fact, the Nazis made a whole production of these belonging to the “eternal Germanic East” and so forth.

But are they really Teutonic? Take a look at these tamga signs described as “Sarmatian” by Tadeusz Sulimirski in his work that is, of course, entitled “The Sarmatians”. Sulimirski also correctly points out that these tamga signs (the strange “2” signs and combinations thereof) are found in late medieval Polish heraldry.

Make of all this what you will. But certainly one of the things that this ought to generate is a reflection as well as some humility. BTW the same can be said of the various “rosette,” “swastika” and “star of David” symbols we discussed before.

On Four Pawed Friends

Published Post authortorino

If you look at the Online Etymology Dictionary (which is quite good), you get the following statement regarding the term “dog”

dog (n.)

“quadruped of the genus Canis,” Old English docga, a late, rare word, used in at least one Middle English source in reference specifically to a powerful breed of canine; other early Middle English uses tend to be depreciatory or abusive. Its origin remains one of the great mysteries of English etymology.

The word forced out Old English hund (the general Germanic and Indo-European word, from root from PIE root *kwon-) by 16c. and subsequently was picked up in many continental languages (French dogue (16c.), Danish dogge, German Dogge (16c.)). The common Spanish word for “dog,” perro, also is a mystery word of unknown origin, perhaps from Iberian. A group of Slavic “dog” words (Old Church Slavonic pisu, Polish pies, Serbo-Croatian pas) likewise is of unknown origin.

Germanic and Latin mystery words are not currently within the investigatory purview of this site. Things, however, look different for Suavic words. The word pies meaning “dog” is attested in Polish from the XIVth century. Other Suavic languages have similar terms for dog (Czech pes, Russian pës, the above mentioned Serbo-Croatian pas or, for that matter, the (East) German Petze). These are derived, perhaps, from the proto-Suavic *pьsъ.

Now, as noted above, this Suavic mystery word is different and, apparently, not derived from the reconstructed PIE version *kwnto-, itself a “dental enlargement” of the root *kwon- “dog. I will get back to that last root at the end of this post but, in the meantime, let’s see what canine words are derived by modern etymological arts from *kwon-:

canis (Latin)
cão (Portuguese)
šuo (Lithuanian)
Hund, hound, *hundaz (German, English, Proto-Germanic)

And, of course, others.

But what about our *pьsъ? Where does it come from? The word is supposedly a Suavic innovation with no obvious parallels in other IE languages. That said a number of theories exist, with most trying to establish some IE connection. Here are some of them.

pecus

Aleksander Brückner was noncommittal suggesting that “they” derive the word from the IE (“Arian”) word for “cattle” which had been retained in some IE languages (Latin pecus but there are also, apparently, equivalents in Old Indian). Perhaps because Suavs could not tell the difference between a cow and a dog or perhaps the latter was used to guard cattle.

ps, ps!

More recently, Wiesław Boryś prefers to derive it from the words used to lure dogs which, apparently, were ps, ps! i don’t know if this was ever attested but the Polish Dialects Dictionary does list this method of luring hounds. Also, some Poles apparently used the scream psa! as part of hallooing.

specie

Another theory derives this word from something like the Latin specie. This means something like “I see, observe.” This would place the Suavic dog into his familiar “pastoral,” “sheep dog” vocation. Or perhaps it would establish the same as man’s “guardian” and “protector.” Take your pick.

pstry

Julius Pokorny connected pies with the Proto-Suavic *pьstrъ meaning “colorful” multi-colored. For example, in Polish you have pstry. This is cognate with the Suavic pisać meaning to write but previously to paint (in colors presumably). For example, we have the pisanka as the word for “Easter egg”. Whether this is also cognate with pstrąg, the Polish word for “trout,“ I don’t know. Perhaps we can connect all to pisces and conclude that Suavs painted (and wrote) with fish oil, blood or innards.

Does this mean that Suavs only had mutt or spotted dogs?

Or does it mean that Suavic dogs were into painting?

pissing

Another version of this word connects this to, well, the act of urination which, apparently, is to have a similar root as the Suavic *pьsati, “to write” but originally “to paint”. Obviously, a dog tends to urinate in quite a visible fashion – at least a dog that one spends some time around. Perhaps, Suavs did not have a name for a dog until the animal became domesticated (which given the timeframes of canine domestication and development of PIE, is, presumably, a truism).

Apparently, this sheds some light on how the early Suavs first painted…

sheep

Another PIE theory connects the Suavic pies with a hypothetical *pheḱhu- which referred originally to “sheep”.

If you read Polish, you can get more data on these theories here.

This is all well and good but is there another possibility?

A suggestion is offered by Brückner’s dictionary under the heading piechota. The word today means “infantry” but its original meaning is rather broader. It refers specifically to the act of walking. Brückner makes the following statement:

“piechota… the almost [yes!] only remainder among Suavs of the urword for “leg”: Ind. pad-, Greek pūs, podos, Latin. pēs, pedis, German Fuss (Gothic fōtus)…”

As you can see above, terms for “feet” and “legs” were sometimes used interchangeably at least over time.

What is the first thing (or things) that you associate (physically) with a dog? I submit its legsm feet or paws.

In fact, we, to this day, commonly describe dogs as our “four legged friends.”

And do you know what you get when you translate “feet” into:

Italian? > piedi
French? > pés
Galician? > pés
Portuguese? > pés
Spanish? > pies

The “s” ending, of course, denotes the plural but the “plural” begs to be addressed when you look at a dog since a dog, quite visibly utilizes twice as many appendages to move around as a human does. Of course, so do horse, donkeys, elephants and an infinite number of other animals but only dogs lay the claim to being man’s best friend and, thus, it is the dogs’ difference from their human companions that received the most attention from the latter (as demonstrated by the above saying).

So what does this mean? To my mind, it means that there is a component of Suavic that suggests a very early contact with a population to whom the word pies would have meant as much as it does to this day’s Spaniards and Portuguese. Perhaps, this is a Venetic contribution.

Now a few other interesting things:

the PIE root for “dog” – *kwon- – surely has to have a connection to the Suavic word for “horse” – koń. And yet Brückner insists that there must have been a consonant between the o and the ń. Unlikely, I think the answer is right here.
slightly in jest, do you know what the Portuguese word is for a “puppy”? It’s cachorro. It remains to be seen whether this can be connected to the Suavic kaczor – meaning “male duck” (or if you want to be proper about it and to relate this somehow to dragons, a “drake”).

In summary, the ancient Suavs applied the PIE word for “dog” to their horses, seem to have gotten their word for dog from some Latin-related word denoting “feet” and kept duckling drakes as their puppies. Got all that?

The Sclavi Cubicularii in the Life of John of Gorze

Published Post authortorino

John of Gorze was born at Vandières, France to a wealthy family. In 933 he became a Benedictine monk at the Gorze Abbey near Metz (Gorze is a roughly between Metz and Vandières). In 953, John was sent as an ambassador for Emperor Otto I to the Caliph Abd-al-Rahman III of Córdoba.

Reception area in the Córdoba palace

Let’s first give some historical context as this is a bit complicated.

It was a challenging time in Spain with the Moors, having defeated the weak Visigothic state, occupying most of the country and trying to use it as a base to further spread their influence into Europe. It seems that Rahman’s people were raiding Frankish lands from a base at Fraxinetum (La Garde-Freinet on the Côte d’Azur?). Therefore, in 950 the Frankish Emperor Otto I sent an embassy to the Caliph to complain. Rahman then sent a reply but apparently the “terms of the letter were highly offensive to Christianity” and, as a result the Caliph’s emissaries were held in Germany for three years.

In 953, the Emperor eventually released them. They left back for Córdoba but now accompanied by the monk John of Gorze along with his fellow monk, Garamannus. The monks carried Otto’s response to the Caliph. This was a letter prepared by Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne (and Otto’s brother). The letter was, apparently, insulting to Islam. Since John knew the contents, he seems to have understood his embassy more like a suicide mission. Being a fanatical monk, he may have hoped for martyrdom. The embassy reached Córdoba in 953 or 954.

After John’s embassy arrived at Córdoba with the letter (as well as gifts for the Caliph), John was at first forced to deal not with the Caliph but with the Caliph’s plenipotentiary, the local vezir Hasdai bin Shaprut (yes, the same Hasdai of the Gebalim letter fame) whose mission was to investigate the contents of the imperial response before it was presented to the Caliph. In effect, the Muslim ruler, knowing that he pissed Otto off, did not want have Otto’s reply be read in public. John eventually disclosed the letters to Hasdai who urged him not to deliver the letter to the Caliph. John, however, was steadfast stating it seems that the presents that Otto sent could not be delivered without the letter having been given to the Caliph first. It seems that the Muslims were happy to get the gifts but not to have a scandal at the court (the same scandal that Otto apparently had to suffer at the hands of the Moor’s ambassadors).

Presumably as a tit for tat for the Muslim emissaries having been imprisoned by Otto for three years, the Christian embassy was also imprisoned somewhere in the vicinity of the palace for three years until the court dignitaries and the Caliph decided how to deal with the situation. In the meantime, the Caliph’s court Christian, a certain Bishop John (no relation to our John) was sent by his master to sway John of Gorze from delivering the letter. The monk seems to have grown disgusted at the meek nature of his, theoretical, superior and nothing was achieved.

Eventually, John stated that he would do whatever the Emperor told him suggesting that another Moorish embassy be sent to Otto. A local Córdoban court official, perhaps a Visigoth (or, more likely, a Frank), by the name Recemundus (who was a Christian) was sent to Otto for more instructions. He arrived at Gorz in ten weeks and stayed there and in Metz. He was received by Otto in Frankfurt and got further diplomatic missives prepared for Rahman. Recemundus left Frankfurt on Palm Sunday 956 with a companion – Dudo of Verdun – and arrived back at Córdoba in early July 956. Presumably, the new missives were less offensive than the original letter or contained some additional information. In any event, the Caliph eventually deigned to see John and the monk after some further meetings with the Caliph returned to the Frankish realm. He died many years later in 974. Furthermore, Recemundus, as a reward for this and other services was made a bishop in Granada. He was later sent on other missions by the Caliph to Byzantium, Syria and Jerusalem.

We learn the story of the embassy from the Vita of John (Vita Joannis Abbatis Gorziensis) written by his friend, another John, the abbot of the abbey of Saint Arnulph located in Metz. The work was written in the 10th century and is an interesting window into the state of affairs (including the very narrow religious tolerance of the Moors) on the Iberian Peninsula.

What is even more interesting for our purposes is that when John arrives in Córdoba some of the messaging with the Caliph is done by persons described as sclavi cubicularii or, more specifically, to give Pertz’ case sclavos cubicularios. So the question was are these sclavi cubicularii, that is “chamber slaves” or are these Sclavi cubicularii, that is “chamber Suavs.” Since Suavs were sold into Muslim slavery (see here and here and here or in many other places on this website), their name became synonymous with that of “slave” eclipsing the original Latin servus. However, that process took a while and it is not clear when that actually happened. Assuming tenth century authorship of the Life of John of Gorze, that transformation may not yet have taken place. If this is correct, the the slaves are really Suavs, once again, suggesting a significant role for at least some of them in Moorish-occupied Spain. Of course, such Suavs would have been slaves or perhaps, more accurately, servants at the court.

The manuscript was published in print in 1657 by Philippe Labbe in his Novae bibliothecae manuscriptorum librorum (tomus primus). A year later it came out in the Bollandists’ Acta Sanctorum as part of their “February tomus III” volume. Then it was edited by Pertz for the MGH (Monumenta Germaniae Historica). Both Labbe and the Bollandists opted for “Suavs” but Pertz went with “slaves.”

The Latin is essentially the following:

Primoribus ergo illis palatium petentibus, cum regi super hoc per nuntios suggessissent — nam accessus ad eum ipsum clarissimus, et nisi maximum quid ingruerit nullus, tantum litteris per sclauos cubicularios omnia perferuntur — ille nihil eorum ad se perlatum rescribit.

Here is the Labbe edition text:

And the Bolland edition.

And, finally, here is Pertz.

So what does the original look like?

We’ll get to that but for now let’s take a look at the English translation of the relevant fragments dealing with John’s embassy. Most of this is from “Christians and Moors in Spain,” translated and edited by Colin Smith with Charles Peter Melville as well as Ahmad Ubaydli, Warminster, 1988, volume I (text number 14) (as part of “Niceties of diplomacy (953-56)” which was “reprinted with corrections” in 1993. (I also took some of the information shown up above from these Colin Smith fragments and from the lead in to the same translation). Note that the Smith translation calls Gorze, Görz (German spelling) and calls Córdoba, Cordova – I kept each of those spellings.

[It seems that the contents of Otto’s letter were leaked by a certain priest before the embassy’s (and the returning Rahman emissaries’) arrival and various local court officials managed to intercept the embassy and tried to sway it to turn back. Unfortunately for them, they then stopped to dally in Saragossa and were overtaken by John with his letter who, with this companions, entered Córdoba ahead of them.]

(120) As a result, [the nobles] having deliberated among themselves to determine whether this had [already] come to the attention of the Caliph, and being unable to assure themselves of this, they decided to inform the same [that is the Caliph] of this fact.

It should be noted that the law by which they [Muslims] are governed is so strict, that that which once is imposed as a precept to entire nation, cannot be annulled in any way, and binds equally the Caliph and the people, paying with life for every transgression, which the Caliph punishes when [such transgression] comes from his subjects, just as the people rise up to punish those who commit the same [transgressions]. The first and most terrible prescription of their laws is that no one should dare to utter the slightest word against their religion, a crime that without remission is atoned for by beheading, both among the natives and the foreigners. If the Caliph hears [the case?] and decides to stay the sword till the next day [?], the same penalty is then carried out without the slightest chance of deferral [of the punishment?].

So, then, when those nobles went to the palace and asked the Caliph about it, using intermediaries – for rarely does he deign to let others into his presence and no one is allowed [to see him] without having gone through much trouble, with all matters being dealt with through letters that go through the house Suavs – the Caliph replied that no letter or document had come into his hands, that his friends had announced the arrival of some ambassadors to him, and that they had been received by his son in his [the son’s] own house, but that he [the Caliph] was still ignorant of the object that they carried. With this answer he managed to placate the concerns of the nobles; although the truth was that that rumor had already reached his ears, whose accuracy he would check by means of [his] secret envoys, although the fear of his people made him hide the manner in which he had learned this.”

(121) The Caliph, always timid and uncertain, considered what danger might threaten him, and sought contrivances of all kinds by which he might avoid it. First he sent to them [the Christian emissaries] a certain Jew, Hasdeu [Hasdai bin Shaprut] by name, none more wise was ever seen or heard of than he, as our people testified, in order that he should discuss everything thoroughly with them. On account of his reputation for patience, he had it put about that he was the bearer of the royal commission, so that he could first win John’s confidence, thereby giving him cheer and freeing him from fear, assuring him that no harm would come to him and that they would be sent home with honour. He reminded them of many things concerning the customs of the [Muslim] people and how they should behave in their presence. As young men they should refrain from all manner of idle and lewd gestures or words; no [offense] would be so slight so as not to be reported at once to the Caliph. If there should be ready opportunities for going out, they should not even show any inclination for light-hearted joking with the women, for the sternest punishment would be inflicted upon them. They should in no way depart from the guidance being offered them, for they would be most carefully watched, and would be thought guilty of the smallest fault.

After John had replied to all this as best he could, and had most willingly listened to his adviser, securing the agreement of his companions for their part, and after much else had been added to the above, the Jew cautiously began on the main matter. What, he earnestly asked, had they been sent to do? Since he saw that John was hesitating somewhat – even though the discussion between them was taking place In private – he gave a promise of confidentiality, especially if the matter carried a need of total secrecy. John set it all out in good order: Once the presents had been given to the Caliph, the letter must also be brought to the Caliph’s attention, without that there should be no presents offered, nor would it be right for him to enter the Caliph’s presence. Then he disclosed the message of the letter in his own words. ‘It would be dangerous’, said the Jew [after hearing this?], ‘for you to see the Caliph with this. Surely you must be careful about what reply you make to the Caliph’s messengers when they come to you. I do not doubt that the severity of the law is already well known to you, and you must consider how you can act carefully and avoid that.’

(122) The Jew left, and after a few months [!] a certain bishop John was sent to them. He, after many discussions of mutual interest (as between members of the same faith), both asked for and offered back, brought the Caliph’s order: that the Christian ambassadors should be brought into the royal presence with their gifts alone. ‘What then’, asked John of Gorz, ‘about the letters from the Emperor? Was I not ordered to make a most important issue of them? For if the Emperor sends insults, he, by having these rejected, as the empty fabrications of his error, will be confounded.’ Bishop John answered this in measured tones. ‘Consider’, he said, ‘under what conditions we live. We have been driven to this by our sins, to be subjected to the rule of the pagans. We are forbidden by the Apostle’s words to resist the civil power. Only one cause for solace is left to us, that in the depths of such a great calamity they do not forbid us to exercise our own laws. They can see that we are diligent followers of the Christian faith, and so they cultivate us and associate with us, just as they delight in their own society, while they thoroughly detest the Jews. For the time being, then, we keep the following counsel: that provided no harm is done to our religion, we obey them in all else, and do their commands in all that does not affect our faith. So I advise you now to leave most of these things unsaid, and altogether to suppress that letter, rather than to bring about a most dangerous clash for yourself and for your people when there is absolutely no need to do it.’

(123) Somewhat angered, John of Gorz replied: ‘It would be fitting for someone other than you, a bishop, to utter such sentiments. But since you are a propagandist for the faith, your superior rank should have made you a defender of it, and still less should you obstruct others in preaching the truth out of any human fear, nor should you yourself hold back from doing that. It would be altogether better for a Christian man to suffer the harsh burden of hunger, than to join in the banquets of the gentiles and thus favour the destruction [of the faith?] of others. In this regard – and this is a thing most hateful to the whole Catholic Church, and evil – I hear that you are circumcised according to the custom of Islam, when the forthright statement of the Apostle is: “If you circumcise yourselves, Christ will not help you.” I hear the same of your foodstuffs, some of which you reject for the sake of keeping on good terms with the Moslems: “All things are clean for those who are clean in soul”; “There will be prating sages who will teach this and that in a beguiling way, among other things abstinence from certain foods, even though God created them to be prepared with thanksgiving by His faithful”; and “Let it be made blessed by the Word of God and by prayer”.’ But Bishop John answered: ‘Necessity constrains us, for otherwise there would be no way in which we could live among them. Indeed, we hold it so as something handed down to us and observed by our ancestors from time immemorial.’ ‘Never’, said John of Gorz, ‘could I approve of that: that the divine laws should be transgressed out of fear, or for friendship, or on account of some human favour. […] Even if I accept that you, constrained by necessity, fall in line with them, I, by the grace of God free from such necessity, and with my mind firmly made up, will in no way be deflected by any fear or enticement or favour from those orders of the Emperor which I undertook to obey. So I will not agree to suppress or alter one iota of these letters, and if anyone should have any objection to make against those things which we state concerning our firm Catholic faith, or comes up with some contrary view of our claims, I will publicly oppose him, and will not for the sake of life itself run away from the task of witnessing to the truth.’

(124) These remarks were secretly reported to the Caliph. The messages not having been sent publicly by the Caliph, John of Gorz could not reply publicly, and the bishop had come into the matter solely in order to make exploratory inquiries. The Caliph, in careful consultations (such as are said to be advisable for all mortals), tried to determine how by one means or another he might influence the emissary’s mind, believing that — just as the strongest wall can be shaken by driving siege-engines against it – he would manage to shake John’s firmness of purpose. When after a month or a period of six or seven weeks of sending messengers to him, and trying to secure some concession within the limits the Christians had set for themselves, it became clear that the latter would not make any change from their original position, the Caliph in amazement at such constancy turned to other possibilities. First, one Sunday, he sent a letter to John full of threats, thinking he could fill the Christians with fear, since they were freely practising their religious rites in his realm. They were allowed to go only to the nearest church, St Martin’s, and that only on Sundays or for the important feast-days of our religion, that is Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, the Ascension, Pentecost, St John, and the days dedicated to the Apostles and the Saints, being accompanied there and back by twelve guards of the sort they call ‘sagiones‘. As John was going to church that Sunday, a letter was handed to him. Because the size of the letter – it was a square of parchment – alarmed him, lest it should call him away from holy communion, to which he was going, he deferred opening it for the time being, until (their holy duties being performed) they returned to their lodging. When he read it, he found certain alarming things which might happen to him, and owned that he had never been so disturbed before by other kinds of fears.

(125) For, after many things with which he was threatened if he refused to obey the Caliph’s commands, by which he declared he was in no way moved, the following was finally stated: that if he should be killed, he [the Caliph] would not leave any Christian in the whole of al-Andalus alive, but would slaughter them all. He added: ‘Think of your responsibility before God for the death of so many souls, of people who, were it not for your obstinacy, [would] not perish on account of any other charge, and who ought to be able to hope for peace and salvation from you. You are at liberty to ask on their behalf for any concession you like, rather than persisting so obstinately in opposition to us.’ John of Gorz turned these things over in his mind as he re-read the letter while walking from the church to his lodging, his mind being torn by great doubts as he tried to decide what to do, and what sort of reply he should make to the Caliph, for he had little experience of such things. But he was suddenly reminded of that axiom – as he often told us – by which all terror and fear might be banished from the mind: he said ‘Cast thy burden upon the Lord’ [Psalms 55.22], and again, ‘Who hath made man’s mouth? Have not I the Lord?’ [Exodus 4.11].

[In section 126, John dictates an uncompromising letter to the Caliph.]

(127) When this letter reached the Caliph, it did not rouse his mind to anger, as had happened before; instead he referred it to his council. The Caliph was first advised by his councillors, to whom our affairs were already known, to suppress his wrath, lest there should be a risk of a confrontation with our Emperor. He, a most warlike victor over many peoples, bringing together the forces of many realms, might ravage all al-Andalus with diverse disasters, and would perhaps take control of it all by right of conquest, in retaliation for all the wrongs done to him, especially to his emissaries, for no wrong was ever received with greater indignation than this. After much discussion of these matters, someone by chance suggested that since the man [John of Gorz] seemed to be so firm in his purpose, and could not be thought to be any the less in good sense, and had shown himself to be so constant in his faith after such a long period, and would not therefore deny his faith under any merely human pressures, he should himself be asked what he considered should be done. So John heard this final resolution from carefully—chosen emissaries. He replied to them as follows: ‘At last, thanks to sound counsel, you have made some progress. If that sound counsel had been taken at the start, much tedium and anxiety for you and for us might have been avoided. Now a swift and easy plan presents itself. Let an embassy be sent by your Caliph to our Emperor, so that it can bring me back word about what I should do with my orders. As soon as I have letters from the Emperor, I will obey in all things.’

(128) When these developments were reported to the Caliph, he accepted the suggestion as a wise one, and ordered that someone willing to undertake such a long journey should be sought; and since very few or almost none would be willing to come forward, it was proposed that anyone willmg to go should be able to claim, on his return, any honour he chose, and all manner of rewards. Eventually a certain Recemundus – a Catholic, moreover, and exceptionally learned in both Arabic and Latin literature — presented himself from among the palace staff.

[… 129, 130: Recemundus journeyed to Gorz in ten weeks, staying there and in Metz and eventually being received by the Emperor in Frankfurt. ‘Litterae mitiores‘, ‘more diplomatic letters’, were there prepared for the Caliph. Recemundus left on Palm Sunday 956 with a companion, Dudo of Verdun, and reached Cordova in early July.]

(131) When all these matters were explained to him, John, released from almost three years of cloistered seclusion, was ordered to appear in the royal presence. When he was told by the messengers to make hiinself presentable to royalty by cutting his hair, washing his body, and putting on clean clothes, he refused, lest they should tell the Caliph that he had changed in his essential being beneath a mere change of clothes. The Caliph then sent John ten pounds in coin, so that he might purchase clothing to put on and be decent in the royal eyes, for it was not right for people to be presented in slovenly dress. John could not at first decide whether to accept the money, but eventually he reasoned that it would be better spent for the relief of the poor, and sent thanks for the Caliph’s generosity and for the solicitude he had deigned to show him. The monk added in his reply: ‘I do not despise royal gifts, but it is not permitted for a monk to wear anything other than his usual habit, nor indeed could I put on any garment of a colour other than black.’ When this was reported to the Caliph, he remarked: ‘In this reply I perceive his unyielding firmness of mind. Even if he comes dressed in a sack, I will most gladly receive him.’

(132) On the day which had been agreed for John’s presentation at court, all the elaborate preparations for displaying royal splendour were made. Ranks of people crowded the whole way from the lodging to the centre of the city, and from there to the palace. Here stood infantrymen with spears held erect, beside them others brandishing javelins and staging demonstrations of aiming them at each other; after them, others mounted on mules with their light armour; then horsemen urging their steeds on with spurs and shouts, to make them rear up. In this startling way the Moors hoped to put fear into our people by their various martial displays, so strange to our eyes. John and his companions were led to the palace along a very dusty road, which the very dryness of the season alone served to stir up (for it was the summer solstice). High officials came forward to meet them, and all the pavement of the outer area of the palace was carpeted with most costly rugs and coverings.

(133) When John arrived at the dais where the Caliph was seated alone

– almost like a godhead accessible to none or to very few – he saw everything draped with rare coverings, and floor-tiles stretching evenly to the walls. The Caliph himself reclined upon a most richly ornate couch. They do not use thrones or chairs as other peoples do, but recline on divans or couches when conversing or eating, their legs crossed one over the other. As John came into his presence, the Caliph stretched out a hand to be kissed. This hand-kissing not being customarily granted to any of his own people or to foreigners, and never to persons of low and middling rank, but only to the high-born and to those of exceptional dignity, the Caliph none the less gave John his hand to kiss.

(134) Then the Caliph signed to John to be seated. A lengthy silence ensued on both sides. Then the Caliph began: ‘I know your heart has long been hostile to me, and that is why I refused you an audience till now. You yourself know that I could not do otherwise. I appreciate your steadfastness and your learning. I wish you to know that things which may have disturbed you in that letter were not said out of enmity towards you; and not only do I now freely receive you, but assure you that you shall have whatever you ask.’ John — who, as he later told us, had expected to utter something harsh to the Caliph, since he had long harboured such resentment — suddenly became very calm and could never have felt more equable in spirit. So he answered that he could not deny he had at first been greatly exercised by the harsh tone of the emissaries, and had thought it better to remain silent for a long period than to torment himself by feigned rather than true statements of threats in response to the Caliph’s threats; but eventually all the obstacles placed in his way by deeds and words over three years had been removed from above, and now no obstacle based on justified enmity remained to make him doubtful of his status. This being so, he had dismissed these things completely from his mind, and was only glad that he had won such generosity and favour, and that in this matter he had perceived such strength of purpose and moderation in the royal heart, and a most noble character. The Caliph was greatly pleased with these remarks, and addressed John on other subjects. Then he asked him to hand over the presents from the Emperor. When this was done, John instantly requested permission to leave. The Caliph asked in surprise: ‘How does this sudden change come about? Since both of us have waited so long for a sight of each other, and since we have now scarcely met, is it right for us to part as strangers? Now that we are together, there is an opportunity for each of us to acquire a little knowledge of the other’s mind, and we could meet again at greater length, and on a third occasion forge a truly firm bond of understanding and friendship. Then, when I send you back to your master, you could bear yourself thither with all due honour.’ John agreed to this. They ordered the other emissaries to be brought in, and the presents which they were carrying were handed over to the Caliph.

(135) The Christians returned to their lodging, and when after a time John was again called to see the Caliph, he conversed with him on a number of subjects of mutual interest: the power and wisdom of our Emperor, the strength and numbers of his army, his glory and wealth, events of war, and many things of that kind. The Caliph for his part boasted that his army exceeded that of any other of the rulers of the world in strength. John made but little answer to this, saying only what might serve to pacify the Caliph’s mind, but eventually he added: ‘I speak the truth when I say that I know of no monarch in the world who can equal our Emperor In lands or arms or horses.’

What does the original say?

As you can see, we won’t get the answer from this as capitalization had not yet taken hold when the manuscript was put together. For what it’s worth, the question has been around for many years with, for example, the Polish revolutionary and popular historian Karol Szajnocha (who, to be sure, did have some crazy theories) firmly believing that the above reference was to Suavs.

Finally, I will leave you with this thought about Gorze aka Görz. Gorze lies in a portion of France that is replete with -in town names. It lies next to Metz and Vandières. Is Gorze a Celtic or Teutonic name? Well, consider where there are other similarly named towns. For example, we have Gorz in Iran (Baluchistan). We also have Gorizia (also aka Görz) in Italy on the Slovene border. This last town’s name was first recorded as Goriza in a document dated April 28, 1001, in which Otto III donated the castle and the village of Goriza to the Patriarch of Aquileia John II and to Count Verihen of Friuli. That document referred to Gorizia as “the village known as Goriza in the language of the Suavs (Villa quae Sclavorum lingua vocatur Goriza). Gorica (the likely original transcription of Goriza) just means “mountain” in Suavic. (This, quite apart from the fact that one of the first sentences in Polish written apparently about the 13th century was “A great calamity befell upon us!” (Gorze się nam stało!) by Henry the Pious in reference to the defeat of the Silesians by the Mongols. This creates another potential Suavic etymology).

So the question is what is the origin of the name of the French Gorze? The first time this town was mentioned seems to have been in 762 (“Monasterium in Gorzia“).

Remains of the abbey church at Gorze

Polish Christian Texts

PublishedApril 19, 2019 Post authortorino

Here are some cool late 15th century Polish prayers:

Lord’s Prayer
Hail Mary
Apostles’ Creed

So that is for Christian Easter. As regards Easter’s pre-Christian, pagan origins, see here.

Continuing With Runic Spears

Published Post authortorino

We’ve already discussed the interesting runic spears found at:

Rozwadów, Poland, and at
Soshychne, Ukraine

The other famous spear from the Central European region is the spear from Dahmsdorf-Müncheberg in Germany but close to the Polish border. In historic times this land lay firmly in the Suavic settlement area though the spear itself is dated to the first century. The modern settlement was in the Lubusz Land and was founded by monks (hence Müncheberg) brought in by the Piast duke Henry the Bearded (the grandson of Władysław II the Exile and the great-grandson of Bolesuav the Wrymouth). Henry and the Silesian “Piasts” got this land from the Piast family of Greater Poland. This was one of the few lands West of the Odra that the Piasts managed to retain for awhile in the face of Frankish and Saxon invasions (the Lubusz diocese is shown below; also with the location of Müncheberg).

Here is that spear:

Just a couple of observations. First, the runes on the spear are supposedly to be read:

ranja

This would be the case only if you read this right to left but if this, in fact, is the correct reading then an immediate question arises what that means. The Suavic verb ranić means “to wound” or “to injure.” Another explanation may tie this to the tribe of the Rani (whose tribal name, the Greater Poland Chronicle explains by reference to their alleged war cries of rana meaning “wound, wound!” Whether this is just a “folk etymology” is another matter. Curiously the Rani, although firmly attested as a Suavic/Wendish tribe by every medieval source contemporary to the wars that the neighboring tribes as well as Franks and Saxons led against the Rani is also attested much earlier in Getica. Rana was also the Suavic name for the island of Rügen and the tribal name may well be derived from the island’s name Rugiani> Ruiani> Rani. But, interestingly the Rügen name may itself be Suavic as in referering to “horn” or rog.

All of this suggests a rather interesting progression of the Rügen name:

Suavic > Teutonic > Suavic

Since the Rugians are mentioned already in ancient sources (Tacitus) this would suggest a Suavic presence first but then a subsequent and relatively early Teutonic invasion with a Suavic reconquista later on (or just some of the Teutonic Rugians having moved on south).

For more on that Rani topic see here. For even more fun reading go see volume 25 of the Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde (edited by Johannes Hoops).

With that said, the above reading is not necessarily convincing as it is not even clear whether the runes are correctly seen as r a n j a runes as opposed to being some other runes. This is quite separate from the question of which direction they should be read from.

Secondly, regarding the symbols, i am, again, reminded of the often downplayed passage in Caesar’s Gallic War (Book 6, chapter 21):

“The Germans differ much from these [Gallic] usages, for they have neither Druids [like the Gauls] to preside over sacred offices, nor do they pay great regard to sacrifices. They rank in the number of the gods those alone whom they behold, and by whose instrumentality they are obviously benefited, namely, the sun, fire, and the moon; they have not heard of the other deities even by report.”

My guess is that the above symbols correspond quite nicely to that description and what remains to be determined is which is which.

Incidentally, this is the Torcello (Venice) spear found in a local museum in 1883 and which has been suspected of being a fake (based on the Dahmsdorf-Müncheberg lance).

Seehausen Horns Aplenty

PublishedApril 12, 2019 Post authortorino

An interesting figurine was found by a certain Mr. Günter Wagener at Seehausen (county of Börde) just west of Magdeburg. I’ve had a picture or two of it before but think it’s interesting to see again.

Labeled, for obvious reasons, as the Trinkhornmann von Seehausen this is what it looks like:

The obvious item here is the potential cornucopia, the horn of plenty. A horn in Suavic mythology appears in a number of places:

Svantevit description in Saxo
Zbruch idol
Altenkirchen stone

More recently, another find is the “mini-horn” from Groß Strömkendorf (in county Nordwestmecklenburg).

Tikkun Olam Judith Style

Published Post authortorino

That slavery continued in Central Europe even after the introduction of Christianity we know from many sources including the Life of Otto of Bamberg which discusses the Pomeranian – Polish wars. Since, for example, the Pomeranians were at the time still pagan, they could be enslaved when taken captive. But slavery did not seem to be limited to pagans. Interestingly, the very first Polish Chronicle, the Gallus Anonymous Chronicle also features an explicit reference captives being Christian. Thus in Book II, chapter 1 we have the description of the birth of Bolesuav III (from Knoll/Schaer translation which you can get online via Google Books):

“The boy Bolesuav was born on the feast of Saint Stephen the king’s; but his mother subsequently fell ill and on the night of our Lord’s birth she passed away, She was a woman who had always performed acts of charity towards the poor and those in captivity, especially preceding the day of her death,* and she had redeemed many Christians with her resources from the servitude of the Jews…”

* note: you have to wonder whether this was a ‘tongue in cheek’ comment.

Bolesuav the Wrymouth was born (probably with a cleft palate or lip) on August 20, 1086. Bolesuav’s mother was Judith of Bohemia – herself a daughter of Duke Vratisuav II of Bohemia and his second wife Adelaide, daughter of King Andrew I of Hungary; she died on Christmas 1086 whether as a result of complications from childbirth is unclear. Incidentally, if the above is factually correct, it is also the first mention of Jews in Poland (albeit the chronicle was written years after the birth of Bolesuav), though it is likely that such presence existed before this time.

Yearly Yearning For Yarn

PublishedApril 8, 2019 Post authortorino

An interesting question is why is the spindle and distaff (kądziel) associated with the Sun? In fact, why is the treatment of the flax seed associated with the Sun? The prayers for healthy flax growth are known from various summer solstice (and not only) rituals throughout Europe.

Aside from the obvious agricultural connection with the Sun needing to shine upon the growing linseed (hence linen), the act of making textiles first involved the production of yarn.

Now close your eyes a bit and look at the Sun (or any light) and it should become obvious that Sun rays looks very much like lines of yarn.

Nowy Targ – courtesy of a local ethno museum

Of course, the word “yarn” also has an interesting etymology which may have something to do with “year”.

Bishop Bar Hebraeus on the Suavs

Published Post authortorino

Bishop Bar Hebraeus Gregorios Bar Ebraya (1226 – 1286) was a Syrian scholar and an author of a world chronicle divided into eleven dynasties for which he used earlier Greek, Syriac and Arabic historians. His chronicle starts at the very beginning and, continued by his brother, goes all the way to 1296. There are a number of mentions of the Suavs in the chronicle. The main edition is that of Paul Bedjan (1898) which was translated (1932) into English by Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge. The whole chronicle is accessible here. A more manageable version of Budge’s is posted by Robert Bedrosian here. Finally, here is another version of the same Budge translation. I left the annoying CAPS mentions of names as they were in the Wallis version.

The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj, the son of Aaron aka Bar Hebraeus
Bar Hebraeus’ Chronography

The First Series of generations, which beginneth with the Patriarchs

“…And in the one hundred and fortieth year of PALAGH the earth was divided a second time, between the sons of NOAH. And to the sons of SHEM came the inheritance from the middle of the inhabited world to the limit thereof on the east, [including] PALESTINE, ARABIA, and PHOENICIA, and the country of SYRIA, and all the country between the Two Rivers (MESOPOTAMIA), and HYRCANIA, and ‘ATHOR (ASSYRIA), and the country of SEN’AR (SHINAR), and BABIL, and KARDO, and all PERSIA, and NORTHERN INDIA and BACTRIANA. And to the sons of HAM [came the inheritance], the whole of the south, from east to west, INDIA (Central, Outer, and Southern), KUSH, SHEBHA, EGYPT, LYBIA, THEBAIS, AFRICA, and towards the north CILICIA, PAMPHYLIA, PISIDIA, MYSIA, PHRYGIA, LUKYA (LYCIA), LYDIA, and of the Islands [of the MEDITERRANEAN] CYPRUS, CHIOS, SICILY, and twenty others. And to the sons of JAPHET [came the inheritance], the whole of the north from east to west, the country of the ‘ALANAYE (GERMANS, RB: Alans?), the TURKS, MEDIA, ARMENIA, CAPPADOCIA, GALATIA, ASIA, MYSIA, TARKI (THRACE?), ‘ILADHA (HELLAS), the land of the GREEKS (IONIANS), the RHOMAYE (BYZANTINES), the SARMATIANS, the ‘ASKLABHE (SCLAVS), the BULGARS, the GALLAYE (GAULS?), the SPANIARDS as far as GADIRA…

Here beginneth the Eighth Series, which passeth from the Kings of the pagan Greeks to the Kings of the Rhomaye

[This “series” starts with the Ptolemies and goes through all the Roman and Byzantine Emperors]

Justinianus

…And in the thirty-first year of JUSTINIANUS a severe earthquake took place, and the two walls of CONSTANTINOPLE, both the inner and the outer, were breached. And the city of RIGIN was so completely swallowed up by the earth that the site thereof could not be identified. And also the purple pillar which [stood] before the palace, and had a statue of the Emperor upon the top of it, was first cast up into the air, and then it turned upside down, and became embedded in the ground into which it sunk to a depth of eight feet. The earth swayed and rocked about like a tree before the wind for ten days. And after these things the armies of the HUNS and the ‘ASKLABE (SLAVS) came and encamped about the royal city, and they broke down the outer walls, and plundered and burnt all the colonnades; and they seized everything which they found and departed. And they came again, a second and a third time, and then the RHOMAYE gained the mastery and destroyed them in the war [which followed]. The few of them who escaped never again appeared in the place…

Justinus

…And [KESRU] laid down a law that a king should not go forth to war except against a king. For the RHOMAYE had sent [a message] to him, saying. ‘We are [only] the servants of a king, and it would be a disgrace to us to go in like thieves and set fire [to places]; how very much more it is [a disgrace] to thee [to do this] who art a king?’ After these things, the RHOMAYE relying on their victory unsaddled their horses and they went away to feed. And behold, suddenly, certain SLAVS, that is to say scouts, came and said, ‘Behold the PERSIANS and KESRU are coming’. Now the RHOMAYE had set no sentries at all on guard, and wholly unexpectedly the army of the PERSIANS came upon them. And trembling fell upon the RHOMAYE. And they began to flee on foot, and the PERSIANS who pursued them cut them down (?), and they collected the weapons, and bridles and armour which the RHOMAYE cast away [when they] fled…

Here beginneth the Ninth Series, which [beginneth with] the kings of the RHOMAYE and endeth with the kings of the YAWNAYE (Greeks)

Tiberius

…At this time when the army of the RHOMAYE was marching to PERSIA with MAURICIUS CAESAR, the barbarian peoples of ‘ABHARIS (ABARES) and ‘ASKLABHONE (SCYTHIA) and LONGOBARDY, who were subject to the KHAKAN, laid waste the countries of the RHOMAYE…

Mauricius

…And in the fourth year of his reign there broke forth and went out from the EAST a hateful people from ‘ABARIS whose hair was plaited, and from the WEST also came the SLAVS and the LONGOBARDS. And they came under the subjugation of the KHAKAN, king of the KAZARAYE, and they captured two cities from the RHOMAYE and many of [their] fortresses. And if it had not been for the great ditch which the king had made outside ADRIANOPLE, they would have set their faces towards CONSTANTINOPLE. Then the RHOMAYE killed the people of ‘ANTIO…, and they fell upon ‘ASKLABHUNYA and captured it and looted it. When the ‘ASKLABHONE heard this they made a great war (i.e. raid) in the country of the RHOMAYE and came back.

At this time there went forth from Inner SCYTHIA three brothers with thirty thousand SCYTHIANS. And they came a journey of two months in the time of winter, for the discovery of water, that is to say [water ] from the fords of MOUNT AMON; and they arrived at the river TANIS (DONA?), which goeth out from the lake of MIANTIS and mingleth in the SEA OF PONTOS. And when they arrived at the frontier of the RHOMAYE, one of them whose name was BULGARIS took ten ships and crossed the river TANIS and pitched his camp between the rivers TANIS and DUNBIR (DON and DNIEPER?), which also mingles (i.e. flows into) the SEA OF PONTOS. And he sent to MAURICIUS [asking] him to give him land to dwell in, and [said that] he would become an ally of the RHOMAYE. And MAURICIUS gave him Upper and Lower MYSIA, and they dwelt there, and they became a guard (i.e. a buffer garrison) for the RHOMAYE. Now, though they were SCYTHIANS the RHOMAYE call them ‘BULGARIANS‘. Then these two other brothers came to the country of ‘AL AN, which is BAR SALIA, that is to say to the towns of the CASPIAN, which the BULGARIANS and the PANGURIANS call the ‘Gate of the Turks’; they were once Christians and are now called ‘KAZARAYE’ after the name of the eldest brother…

…And in the eighth year of MAURICIUS the PERSIANS rebelled against HORMIZD, their king, and they seized him by treachery and blinded his eyes, and he died. And ten months later those who had killed him because of the multitude of his evil deeds, inclined towards his son KESRU; and they made him their king [and he reigned] thirty-eight years. Now BAHRAM, the captain of the Persian host, did not favor KESRU, and he and many people rebelled against him vigorously. Then KESRU took refuge with the RHOMAYE, and he sent a message secretly to MAURICIUS saying that he was ready to go to him if it pleased him to grant him permission. When MAURICIUS heard this he rejoiced. And he wrote [to him saying] that he would help him in everything. And KESRU rose up promptly and came to EDESSA. And IWANNIS (JOANNES), a native of RUSAFAYA, received him into his house, and honoured him greatly. And he wrote to MAURICIUS, [saying], ‘Like a slave he should be to him’, but MAURICIUS replied that he should honour him as a father honoureth his son. And MAURICIUS sent to JOANNES, the captain of the host of the TARKAYE, with twenty thousand soldiers, and ANASTASIUS who took with him ‘ARMANAYO (ARMENIANS) and BULGARIANS– twenty thousand. And he sent forty talents of gold for his expenses. And when KESRU received these he marched to his own country. And HORMIZAN the PERSIAN came to him with ten thousand men. Now, when the rebels heard [this] they made ready to fight, and they were defeated and turned their backs in flight, and the captains who were among them were captured and killed, and the rest returned to KESRU. Then KESRU gave many gifts to the RHOMAYE, and he sent great gifts to MAURICIUS and precious stones, and he gave back DARA and RAS’AYN to the RHOMAYE. And KESRU asked MAURICIUS and he gave him MARIA, his daughter, to wife. And bishops went down with her, and the daughter of THEODOSIUS also made a splendid feast, and the Patriarch bound on the wedding crown. And KESRU built three great temples to the God-bearer, to the Apostles, and to SERGIUS the martyr, and the Patriarch of ANTIOCH consecrated them. And Christianity spread throughout PERSIA…

Phocas

…And there was a severe winter, and the EUPHRATES was frozen over. And after two years the PERSIANS crossed the EUPHRATES, and seized MABBOGH, and KENNESHRIN, and BEROEA and ANTIOCH. And it is said that when KESRU was master of EDESSA he took as a captive the wife of JOANNES of RUSAFA, whom he had honoured with such great honour when he received him into his house, and he took her down to PERSIA, and put her to death by tortures. The reason of this was that one day when he was resting in the house of JOANNES he said unto her, ‘It is the custom among the PERSIANS that when the king condescends to go into the house of one of his governors, for the mistress of that house to come forth and to pay him honour, and to mix wine for him, even if it be only one cup[ful]’. Now though JOANNES was ashamed and was unwilling to act contrary to the wish of his wife, he inclined towards the matter (i.e. he thought that she might do what the king wanted done). But she did not wish to do so, and she replied, ‘In truth we are bound to pay honour to our chief, for he is a great king. But with us SYRIANS it is not the custom for the women to go out to men when they are drinking together. Therefore let not him (the king) blame me because I was too bashful to go out [to pay homage to him]. Then the Calumniator (i.e. the Devil) inflamed the wrath of KESRU, and he said to JOANNES, ‘That she did not go forth hath brought contempt upon thee, and what she hath said hath done so also’. This was his opinion; and because of this act he was driven away from his high position, and for this reason he kept his anger against her…

Here beginneth the Tenth Series, which passeth on from the GREEK (IONIAN) kings to the ARAB kings

…Then JUSTINIANUS waxing proud, transgressed [his] oaths, and he broke the peace before it was fulfilled, and he sent and made captives the ARABS who were in CYPRUS. Because of this MAHAMMAD, the Amir of the island of KARDU, went to CAPPADOCIA, and the RHOMAYE and the ‘ASKLABE (SLAVS) attacked him in battle, and the RHOMAYE were defeated near CESARAEA. And the ‘ASKLABE (SLAVS) made friends with the ARABS, and about seven thousand of them went out with them to SYRIA. And they settled them in ANTIOCH and in KUROS, and gave them women and provisions (rations?)…

,,,In the year one thousand and ten of the GREEKS (A.D. 699), the captain of the host of CILICIA, whose name was ‘APSIMAROS, who is called ‘TIBERIUS’, came and swept away LEONTIUS from the kingdom, and reigned in his stead, but he did not kill LEONTIUS. This TIBERIUS subjugated again the SLAVS who had rebelled against the RHOMAYE. And he went out to the country of SAMOSATA and slew five thousand ARABS, and he took captives and looted and came back. Then ‘ABD AL-MALIK appointed two captains of the host, viz. MAHAMMAD over BETH NAHRIN, and ASSYRIA, and ARMENIA, and ADHORBIJAN, and his servant HAJAJ over all PERSIA and ARABIA. And when HAJAJ plundered the chiefs of the ARABS mercilessly, MAHAMMAD sent and brought MU’ED, the chief of the Thaglabite ARABS who were Christians, and urged him to become a Muslim. And when he refused to do so he cast him into a miry pit. And then he brought him out again, and flattered him, and when he would not be persuaded by any means whatsoever, he killed MU’ED. And he also collected the chiefs of the ARMENIANS and shut them up in one of the churches of ARMENIA, and then he set the church on fire and burnt them all. And he slew ANASTUS, the son of ANDREA, governor of EDESSA…

…And in the year twelve hundred and seven of the GREEKS (A.D. 896), LEO, king of the RHOMAYE., fell sick of a disease of the bowels and died, and his son ALEXANDER reigned after him one year. And because he had turned aside his heart from the fear of God, and had given himself over to sorcerers and magicians, he was smitten by the rod of righteousness and died. And after him his brother CONSTANTlNUS reigned four years. And at the beginning of his kingdom SIMIAN, the chief of the BULGARIANS and SCLAVS, came against CONSTANTINOPLE, and he destroyed many villages. And he afflicted the city also, and he made against it a great ditch [which reached] from BELAKERNE to the gate which is called ‘Golden’. And the king of the RHOMAYE sent [a dispatch] to him, saying, ‘Since we are all Christians, and the children of one baptism, why do such dissentions as these exist between us?’ And as SIMION refused to be propitiated (or, reconciled), king CONSTANTINUS collected the Arab prisoners who were in CONSTANTINOPLE, and he promised them that if they would help the RHOMAYE to victory [over] the BULGARIANS he would set them free. And having sworn to the king oaths [that they would do so], weapons of war were given to them. And the RHOMAYE went forth with the ARABS with one purpose, and they defeated the SCLAVS, and killed many of them, and the rest fled. The king (CONSTANTINUS), however, went back on his promise, and he took away from the ARABS their weapons, and threw iron fetters on them again, and scattered them throughout his provinces, for he was afraid lest they should set up a chief for themselves. The history of the blessed MAR MICHAEL, which dealeth with the war of the RHOMAYE with the ARABS, [testifieth] to this, and he introduceth it in the Arabic manuscripts [which describe] the war with the SCLAVS, and it is correct. For during the war with the ARABS the RHOMAYE would never have believed it [safe] to release the Arab prisoners from their bonds, and to put weapons of war into their hands…

…[A.D. 944] After MUTHAKI, MUSTAKFI, the son of MUKTAFI, [ruled] one year and four months. And during the year in which he reigned, various peoples, the ‘ALANAYE, and the ‘ASLABHAYE (SCLAVS), and the LAGZAYE, went forth and came to ‘ADHORBIJAN, and they captured the city, the name of which was BARDA’AH, and they killed therein about twenty thousand men and departed. And again the nobles conceived treachery concerning king MUSTAKFI. And one day when he was sitting on his throne the nobles went in according to custom, and they kissed the ground, and they kissed his hand and stood up. And when their number was complete, one of them, he who had come in last, kissed the ground, and drew nigh to the king. And the king, thinking that he had come near him in order to kiss his hand, stretched out his hand to him. And the noble took it and dragged him towards himself, and pulled him from his throne on to his face. And all the nobles gathered together about him, and they made him to go forth from the palace on foot, and they took him along and shut him up in the mansion of MU’IZZ AD-DAWLAH, the captain of the host. And they brought FADHIL, the son of MUK’TADER, and made him king, and named him MUTI’…

…And in the year thirteen hundred and forty-one of the GREEKS (A.D. 1030)… when ROMANUS the king heard that the RHOMAYE were broken at ALEPPO, he collected a mighty army, more than one hundred thousand men, and came to ANTIOCH; and from there he set out to come to ALEPPO. And since two nobles of the ‘ASKLABE (SCLAVS) and the army that was with them were [marching] a little in advance of the army of the RHOMAYE, they encountered about one hundred MA’DAYE horsemen and a thousand foot soldiers, and the SCLAVS were broken, and turned their faces [in flight]. And they made a report to the RHOMAYE, saying, ‘Behold, innumerable soldiers, EGYPTIANS and MA’DAYE, are coming’. And fear fell upon the RHOMAYE, and with the greatest difficulty ROMANUS the king and his troops, one by one, each on his horse, fled to ANTIOCH without fighting and without [striking] a blow. And the ARABS overtook them, and they captured from the RHOMAYE seventy camels with their loads of zuze and dinars, and vessels of gold and silver, and bales of rich stuffs, and such a large number of mules that a Tarka mule was sold in ALEPPO for two dinars. It is said that ROMANUS himself was not able to save one tent or a cup from which he could drink water…

…And in the year which was the year thirteen hundred and fifty-five of the GREEKS (A.D. 1044)… a great army of SCLAVS, that is to say RUSSIANS, came against the royal city by sea and by land. And God helped the RHOMAYE, and they set fire to their ships and burned them on the sea, and the greater number of them were burned and sunk. And similarly they made prisoners of many of those who had come by land, and they cut off their right hands; and the RHOMAYE obtained a great victory. And at the time when there were many aliens, ARMENIANS, and ARABS, and JEWS, in the royal city, a great tumult broke out against CONSTANTlNE the king. And the peoples gathered together at the gate of the palace and cried out, ‘This CONSTANTINE hath killed two of our kings’, and they were seeking for an excuse (or, reason) for looting the palace and the mansions of the nobles. Then king CONSTANTINE gathered together the nobles, and he brought out THEODORA and ZAI (ZOAI) arrayed in gorgeous royal apparel. And when the agitators saw them they became quiet. And the king having inquired into the cause of the tumult, he was told that the aliens had made the tumult so that they might loot the city. Then the king commanded that there should not remain in it anyone who had entered it during the last thirty years, and that the man who stayed should have his eyes gouged out. Then there went out about one hundred thousand souls…

…And at this time TUSHI, the eldest son of CHINGIZ KHAN, died. And he left seven grown-up sons who were: TAMSHAL, HARDU, BATU, SIBARAN, TANGUTH, BARAKAH, and BARKAJAR. And from among these the Khan selected BATU, and to him he handed over the northern countries of the SLAVS, and the GERMANS, and the RUSSIANS, and the BULGARIANS. And his seat was on the great river which is called ‘ITIL (i.e. the VOLGA). And BATU, whilst going on the northern road from the country of the IBERIANS to the countries of the BULGARIANS and SCYTHIANS, destroyed their populations by the edge of the sword, and blotted out their kingdoms. And because the command of the Khan had gone forth in this wise: ‘[The troops] shall cut off the right ear of every BULGARIAN and RUSSIAN who is killed, when they counted the ears, two hundred and seventy thousand ears were found with the TATARS…”

Other Known Origos

PublishedApril 6, 2019 Post authortorino

Here are the opening pages of the Origo Gentis Longobardorum. I’ve previously posted the full manuscript version (Madrid) here but there are two others that are of interest to anyone curious about Suavs or, naturally Lombards. I’ve included the front pages from Modena and those others. The names are:

Cava de’ Tirreni
Modena
Madrid

The names of the Vandal dukes – Ambri and Assi are outlined in red in each of the three.

The Pertz reference is to the MGH edition. Pertz seems to think the Cava de’ Tirreni MS is the newest though it seems it may be the oldest instead. In fact, looking at the MGH edition in comparison to the actual manuscript pages, you can immediately spot where Pertz made some mistakes, deviations from his text either not being noted or being shown as different than they really are (for example, for the Cava de’ Tirreni manuscript Lethingys shown as Lethingis).

These are all conveniently accessible via the University of Köln website that provides links to various medieval legal texts – the Bibliotheca Legum.

Cava de’ Tirreni
Biblioteca della Badia di Cava, 4
(early 9th century, though Pertz says 11th)
Pertz 1b)

This manuscript also features a cool Völkertaffel upfront that is not part of the Origo.

Then there is a picture of Godan (getting up from his bed to find the “long beards”), Frea, Gambara and her sons Ybor and Agio as well as the Winnili on the right side of the picture. The author seems to have provided other pictures in the manuscript though high artistry this is not).

What is interesting is that Godan is written Goban with a “b”.

This is the first page. It is not exactly great quality. Curiously, the immediately following page is not present in the manuscript – at least not in the electronic version though it seems also not in the codex. Quite separate from that, the Bibliotheca Legum description seems incorrect as indicates that the Origo in this codex runs from 5r to 70v which, given how short that work is, can’t be right (though I did not delve into what is on those pages – some Langobardic legal text).

In any event, the next page jumps to Zucho and Wacho and their adventures.

Modena
Biblioteca Capitolare 0.I.2
(9th century, though Pertz says 10th)
Pertz, 2)

Madrid
Biblioteca Nacional 413
(11th century, though Pertz says 10th)
Pertz 1a)